Mr. McDermott: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of privileges of the House, offer a resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
RESOLUTION
Correcting the Record of Tuesday, January, 28, 2003.
Resolved, That an asterisk be placed in the permanent Record of Tuesday, January 28, 2003, noting that the following statements contained in the State of the Union Address by the President of the United States are inaccurate:
(1) ``The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
(2) ``Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.''
(3) ``From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspections sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves.''
(4) ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.''.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair will hear argument on the question of whether the resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized.
Mr. McDermott: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 16, I gave notice of my intention to raise a question of privileges of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the first definition of rule IX(1) is ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' Rule IX is designed to give Members of the House the means to protect the dignity and integrity of this body, and that is what my resolution seeks to do.
I believe that our rights, our dignity, and our integrity are affected and are harmed when inaccurate statements are made in our Chamber and recorded in our official proceedings without note being taken that they are inaccurate. I believe that the integrity of the Congressional Record is harmed and the dignity of the body issuing the RECORD is harmed.
I am aware that it is conceivable that Members of this body may, at least in theory, at times make statements on the floor that might be shown to be inaccurate. When this occurs, however, other Members have the opportunity and the responsibility to engage in debate to identify the offending statements. Readers of the Congressional Record, citizens, future historians, have the opportunity to learn from our debate what is and is not accurate.
When the four statements I have identified were made in this Chamber on January 28, there was no such opportunity to engage the person making these statements in debate in order to identify the statements as inaccurate as there is normally in the House. Unless we act today, when future historians go back to examine our proceedings, they will find these four statements presented in the RECORD unchallenged.
Normally, dubious statements in the RECORD are not unchallenged. Normally, we collectively take responsibility for the accuracy of the statements made in the RECORD through our debate and discussion. The statements of January 28 were made outside the normal process Congress uses to identify inaccurate statements. Therefore, the only opportunity Congress has to protect the integrity of its proceedings is to identify in the RECORD the statements that are inaccurate.
I believe that the integrity of our proceedings, as protected under rule IX, requires the House to consider my resolution. To fail to consider this resolution would leave the implication that these statements were of no consequence, or that this body did not care to identify them as inaccurate. I do not think we can afford to leave that impression in a journal that will be examined in the future as a basis for writing the history of our entrance into the war.
Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I ask that we consider this resolution at this time.
The Speaker pro tempore: The Chair is prepared to rule.
The resolution alleges certain inaccuracies in the address of the President of the United States before a joint session of the two Houses earlier in this Congress and resolves that those precise statements be footnoted by asterisks in the permanent Congressional Record.
The Chair has examined precedents permitting questions of the privileges of the House to address the accuracy and propriety of the Congressional Record. In each of these occasions where questions of privilege have been permitted, it was alleged that a Member had been proceeding out of order, that remarks were improperly transcribed, or that unauthorized matter was inserted in the Record.
On several occasions, the Chair ruled that where remarks that were made in order were printed in the Record, collateral challenges under the guise of questions of privilege were not in order. (See Hinds V, 6974; Cannon's VIII, 3469, 3498). While the Chair is not aware of any precedent with regard to the accuracy of an address by the President of the United States in a joint session, the Chair rules that allegations of factual inaccuracy in the contents of a speech, as opposed to the fidelity of its transcription, whether by the President or by a Member, are matters for subsequent proper debate and do not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House. To rule otherwise would be to permit collateral challenges under the guise of a question of privilege to the factual correctness of every word uttered, whether or not alleging the unauthorized inclusion of those remarks on the Record.
The Chair, therefore, rules that the resolution does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
:puke:
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. McDermott: Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker pro tempore: The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McDermott: Is the effect of your ruling that whatever the President says must be considered correct since we have no chance to debate him, we have no chance to question him?
The Speaker pro tempore. The Chair has ruled that debate over the next weeks or months in the House can go to the question of the factual accuracy of the previous statements of the President; but it would not be proper to do so in this type of resolution or in this form.
Mr. McDermott: So the body does not have a way to deal with the statements made in the State of the Union message? We must accept it, and there it is?
The Speaker pro tempore: The House has the right and the responsibility to respond to the President's address during subsequent debate.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=H9704&position=allMods: This is in the public domain.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
